Awesome JJ! _________________The spirit can die when the force that's crushing it is great enough. By raining bullets down on the silent faces, already turned away from the world, you thought you could destroy the face of our truth. But we have faith in a different force. That hopeless hope is what sustains us now. My comrades are more numerous than your bullets, and more patient than your executioners.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:14 am

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6844Location: Missouri

Senator Feinstein, one of the authors of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban passed under President Clinton, has a new bill that will be presented to congress on January 3rd. Among the many things outlined in the bill, it will ban "assault rifles", which seems to be the main point everyone wants to go after. Furthermore it will force everyone who currently owns an "assault rifle" to pay the government $200 (per firearm). They will also have to register the firearm, be fingerprinted, submit a photograph of themselves, submit an address of where the firearm will be kept, and will require permission from the BATFE if the owner wants to transport the firearm across state lines. When the owner dies, the firearm must be given to the government. The firearm cannot be transferred to anyone else.

The bill would ban any firearm that has one of the characteristics outlined in the 1994 ban (note that the previous ban required two characteristics, this one requires only one).

Personally, I hope Congress throws this bill out completely and makes someone else write up another. God forbid someone should have a rifle stock that can be adjusted to how long your arm is or has a hole for your thumb to go in._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:13 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7613Location: Sailing into the unknown

The only reason I'd re-write it would be to make it tougher. But that's me. _________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:31 pm

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6844Location: Missouri

Playing devil's advocate: @Reep: if there was a ban on swords, you'd be perfectly fine with the content of the law focusing on the particular degree of comfort the hilt provides?_________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:21 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7613Location: Sailing into the unknown

It would bug me, but if swords were being used for mass slaughter, I'd suck it up. Fortunately for me swords are nowhere near as effecient as assault rifles for mass slaughter._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

That's quite true. On the same day as this latest event, twenty two kids were stabbed in China in a similar event. Not one, however, died. Getting rid of guns doesn't prevent or treat the underlying psychoses, but it sure as hell makes it a lot harder for people to kill others._________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Message

Salaris VornModerator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008Posts: 2335Location: New York, USA

Reepicheep wrote:

It would bug me, but if swords were being used for mass slaughter, I'd suck it up. Fortunately for me swords are nowhere near as effecient as assault rifles for mass slaughter.

As someone who is a fencer I agree with Reep on this, it would be irritating to have such a restriction but if such a restriction could make people safer better to suck it up than take the chance on more deaths. This being said in theory different hilts would only dictate the style and technique employed but wouldn't decrease the lethal potential of the sword in trained hands (albeit not nearly as efficient as a gun due to effective range). In that regard I understand what you're getting at Skuls with the telescoping stock. In both cases it's putting a restriction on an aspect of a deadly weapon that has little to no impact on it's lethal potential. There are other aspects of both weapons that would make far more sense to put restrictions on because they more directly impact how lethal the weapon can be.

I do understand the folding stock bit though since, as I understand it with my limited gun knowledge, it refers to stocks like on the Sterling SMG or UMP (correct me if I'm wrong) which allows it to be carried in a smaller pack or more easily concealed. If the idea behind the law is to make it harder to carry a weapon unnoticed into a public space then having such restrictions seems to make sense. I'm not sure to what degree telescoping stocks have the same benefit of folding stocks in that regard but I'd be interested to know._________________

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:28 am

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6844Location: Missouri

Well the technical aspects of a telescoping stock versus a folding stock, the folding stock would have a shorter overall length than what you would achieve with a telescoping stock slid to its shortest allowable length. A telescoping stock will allow you to have a more concealable weapon to a degree, but any kind of rifle will be hard to conceal, even if you remove the stock completely. That's because a rifle has to have a minimum barrel length unless you register it as a NFA firearm.

I'm not sure concealability has ever been an issue in any mass shootings (at least concealability of a rifle). The only incidents that I can recall where a shooter concealed their weapon involved handguns._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:54 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

The only rifle mass shooting I can recall is the Texas Bell Tower and Charles Whitman. Since this was the first mass shooting in modern times, no one could've conceived of it happening. I don't remember when the next mass shooting happened but the Texas Tower one felt like an isolated occurrence.

Incidentally, Houston McCoy, the Austin policeman who stopped Charles Whitman, died just three days ago. McCoy and another officer, Martinez, both shot Whitman._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:46 am

Message

Alan Skywalker VMaster

Joined: 10 Apr 2011Posts: 632

Be interesting to see what the results of the hearings today are. Will people finally take some serious action or will they refuse to listen?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:38 pm

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6844Location: Missouri

Since talk has turned from assault rifles to high capacity magazines, I thought this was worth posting (it's part of a letter written and signed by Army special forces)

Quote:

"...the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself."

It doesn't seem any change in gun laws is going to be made on the federal level.

The polarization of the issue is problematic because the gun rights side does not want to give any ground, and consequently any legislation is written by people like Diane Feinstein, whose bills are written from ignorance.

I think the most sensible means to handle the situation is to have some form of gun registry and/or require training, but "federal gun registry" seems to equal "the government is preparing to take your guns away." In the United States, you have a right to vote, but you still have to register to vote. Is it asking too much to register a gun for your right to own one? I don't think so. But perhaps there's a compelling argument to be made against any sort of registry?

Also, I think it's lame that automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are illegal. You can own automatic guns manufactured before 1986, there are simply hoops to jump through in order to do so. It's an arbitrary distinction. But I guess it's irrelevant to me since I'm in California, which is Diane Feinstein's state, and I can't own an AR-15 at all! And I don't really need an automatic rifle, but that's just an example of the weird gun control laws that get written by those in favor of them without a mediating force.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:55 pm

Message

DanielSoloPadawan

Joined: 01 Jul 2014Posts: 34Location: Corellia

In my opinion, I feel like no civilian needs to own a semi automatic gun. The mentally ill should have check ups every month._________________"Laugh it up, fuzzball!"- Han Solo

I do believe that (more) gun control is a good thing, but this focus by the media on the mentally unstable is far out of proportion to the reality. It's the 'normies' you have to look out for._________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.